Related cases:

• CAS 2022_A_8558 Mohamed Talaat vs FEI
  June 6, 2022
• CAS 2022_A_8569 Sheikh Ali Al Thani vs FEI
  June 2, 2022
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Bassem Mohammed
  December 17, 2021
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Mohamed Talaat
  December 17, 2021
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Sheik Ali Al Thani
  December 17, 2021
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Sheik Ali Al Thani & Bassem Mohammed - Partial Decision
  February 15, 2020
  
  

On 17 December 2021 the Tribunal of the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) decided to impose a fine and a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Qatari rider Bassem Mohammed after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold (2955 ng/mL).

In first instance the FEI Tribunal concluded that the Athlete's explanation, that unknowing exposure to Cannabis during his residence in Morocco through sabotage had caused the positive test, is merely speculative as no corroborating evidence was ever produced during the proceedings.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the FEI Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). CAS partially upheld the decisions of the FEI Tribunal, decided to reduce the imposed period of ineligibility and to backdate the suspension period.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 June 2022 that:

1. The appeal filed on 4 January 2022 by Mr Bassem Mohammed against the Federation Equestre lnternationale (FEI) with respect to the decision taken by the Tribunal of the FEI on 17 December 2021 is partially upheld.
2. The Decision rendered by the Tribunal of the FEI on 17 December 2021 is confirmed save for the item 2) a), which is so amended:
   

   "2.) The Athlete shall incur:
   a.) a period of ineligibility of two (2) years. The period of ineligibility will be effective from 13 October 2019 until 12 October 2021. All competitive results achieved by the Athlete during the period of ineligibility are disqualified"

3. The Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr Bassem Mohammed, which is retained by the CAS.
4. Each Party shall bear its own expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
5. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Related cases:

• CAS 2022_A_8558 Mohamed Talaat vs FEI
  June 2, 2022
• CAS 2022_A_8570 Bassem Mohammed vs FEI
  June 2, 2022
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Sheik Ali Al Thani
  December 17, 2021
• FEI 202 FEI vs Bassem Mohammed
  December 17, 2021
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Mohamed Talaat
  December 17, 2021
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Sheik Ali Al Thani & Bassem Mohammed - Partial Decision
  February 15, 2020
  
  

On 17 December 2021 the Tribunal of the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) decided to impose a fine and a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Qatari rider Sheik Ali Al Thani after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold (404 ng/mL).

In first instance the FEI Tribunal concluded that the Athlete's explanation, that unknowing exposure to Cannabis during his residence in Morocco through sabotage had caused the positive test, is merely speculative as no corroborating evidence was ever produced during the proceedings.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the FEI Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). CAS partially upheld the decisions of the FEI Tribunal, decided to reduce the imposed period of ineligibility and to backdate the suspension period.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 June 2022 that:

1. The appeal filed on 4 January 2022 by Mr Sheikh Ali Al Thani against the Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI) with respect to the decision taken by the Tribunal of the
   FEI on 17 December 2021 is partially upheld.
2. The operative part of the decision rendered by the Tribunal of the FEI on 17 December 2021 is confirmed save for the item 2) a), which is so amended:
   

   "2.) The Athlete shall incur:
   a.) a period of ineligibility of one (1) year. The period of ineligibility will be effective fi'om 13 October 2019 until 12 October 2020. All competitive results achieved by the Athlete during the period of ineligibility are disqualified."

3. The Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr Sheikh Ali Al Thani, which is retained by the
   CAS.
4. Each Party shall bear its own expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
5. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

Related cases:

• CAS 2022_A_8569 Sheikh Ali Al Thani vs FEI
  June 2, 2022
• CAS 2022_A_8570 Bassem Mohammed vs FEI
  June 2, 2022
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Bassem Mohammed
  December 17, 2021
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Mohamed Talaat
  December 17, 2021
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Sheik Ali Al Thani
  December 17, 2021
• FEI 2020 FEI vs Sheik Ali Al Thani & Bassem Mohammed - Partial Decision
  February 15, 2020
  
  
  

On 17 December 2021 the Tribunal of the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) decided to impose a fine and a 2 year period of ineligibility on the Egyptian rider Mohamed Talaat after his A and B samples tested positive for the prohibited substance Cannabis in a concentration above the WADA threshold (608 ng/mL).

In first instance the FEI Tribunal concluded that the Athlete's explanation, that unknowing exposure to Cannabis during his residence in Morocco through sabotage had caused the positive test, is merely speculative as no corroborating evidence was ever produced during the proceedings.

Hereafter the Athlete appealed the FEI Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). CAS partially upheld the decisions of the FEI Tribunal, decided to reduce the imposed period of ineligibility and to backdate the suspension period.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 2 June 2022 that:

1. The appeal filed on 7 January 2022 by Mr Mohamed Talaat against the Federation Equestre Internationale (FEI) with respect to the decision taken by the Tribunal of the FEI on
   17 December 2021 is partially upheld.
2. The operative part of the decision rendered by the Tribunal of the FEI on 17 December 2021 is confomed save for the item 2) a), which is so amended:
   

   "2.) The Athlete shall incur:
   a.) a period of ineligibility of one (1) year. The period of ineligibility will be effective from 17 June 2021. All competitive results achieved by the Athlete during the period of ineligibility are disqualified."

3. The Award is pronounced without costs, except for the Court Office fee of CHF 1,000 (one thousand Swiss Francs) paid by Mr Mohamed Talaat, which is retained by the CAS.
4. Each Party shall bear its own expenses incurred in connection with these arbitration proceedings.
5. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2021/A/8056 Olga Pestova v. Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA)

• Rugby
• Doping (methylhexaneamine)
• Conditions for the reduction of the standard sanction on the basis of “No Significant Fault or Negligence”
• Level of care expected from the athlete for a finding of “No Significant Fault or Negligence”
• Categories and levels of fault

1. According to the applicable regulations, in order for the standard sanction for a violation involving a specified substance and a non-intentional anti-doping rule violation to be reduced on the basis of “No Significant Fault or Negligence”, the athlete must, on a balance of probabilities, firstly establish how the prohibited substance entered his/her system (the so-called “route of ingestion”). This is the “threshold” condition established by the anti-doping rules to allow “access” to a finding of “No Significant Fault or Negligence”. Secondly, s/he must establish the facts and circumstances that are relevant to his/her fault and, on that basis, why the standard sanction should be reduced. A period of ineligibility can be reduced based on “No Significant Fault or Negligence” only in cases where the circumstances justifying a deviation from the duty of exercising the “utmost caution” are truly exceptional, and not in the vast majority of cases.

2. The “bar” should not be set too high for a finding of “No Significant Fault or Negligence”. In other words, a claim of “No Significant Fault or Negligence” is (by definition) consistent with the existence of some degree of fault and cannot be excluded simply because the athlete left some “stones unturned”. An athlete can always read the label of the product used or make internet searches to ascertain its ingredients, cross-check the ingredients so identified against the Prohibited List or consult with the relevant sporting or anti-doping organizations, consult appropriate experts in anti-doping matters and, eventually, not take the product. However, an athlete cannot reasonably be expected to follow all such steps in every and all circumstances. To find otherwise would render the “No Significant Fault or Negligence” provision in the World Anti-Doping Code (WADC) and translated into the applicable regulations meaningless.

3. Until the 2015 version of the WADC, anti-doping rules allowed a distinction between three degrees of fault or negligence. The 2015 version of the WADC significantly differs from the previous scheme for the consideration of the specificities of individual cases. As a result, the time span of 24 months which is still available now covers only two instead of three categories of fault: 1) normal degree of fault: over 12 months and up to 24 months with a standard normal degree leading to an 18-month period of ineligibility; and 2) light degree of fault: 0-12 months with a standard light degree leading to a 6-month period of ineligibility. In order to determine into which category of fault a particular case might fall, it is helpful to consider both “objective” and “subjective” levels of fault. The objective level of fault points to “what standard of care could have been expected from a reasonable person in the athlete’s situation”, while the subjective level looks to “what could have been expected from that particular athlete, in the light of his/her particular capacities”. Therefore, the objective element should be foremost in determining into which of the relevant categories a particular case falls; the subjective element can then be used to move a particular athlete up or down within that category. All in all, however, there might be some overlap within those elements.

In October 2020 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violatin against the rugby player Olga Pestova after her sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Methylhexaneamine (1,3-dimethylamylamine).

Consequently on 19 May 2021 the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) decided to impose a 1 year period of ineligibility on the Athlete. The DADC accepted that the violation was not intentional and considered that at the material time the Athlete suffered from a head injury that effected her physical and psychological condition.

Hereafter in June 2021 the Athlete appealed the DADC decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). She requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision and to eliminate or reduce the imposed sanction.

The Athlete admitted the violation and denied the intentional use of the substance. She explained that she suffered from a head injury a week before the match and the sample collection.

After her injury she did not receive a proper examination and she continued to train while she experienced acute headache, nausea and dizziness. Feeling sick and disoriented she consumed a Melior sport drink purchased in a sport nutrition shop.

She asserted that she did check the ingredients of this drink and only after further research into this product it appeared that this Melior drink was a counterfeit product of Russian origin. She acknowledged that she did not inform the team's managagement about her medical condition because she feared not to be selected for the next match.

The Athlete argued that her cognitive disorder caused by concussion is of particular relevance to assess whether she could adequately evaluate the information and make decisions when she bought and consumed the Melior sport drink.

RUSADA accepted that the Athlete's violation was not intentional and that the Melior sport drink was the possible source of the prohibited substance in her sample. Yet it does not accept that the Athlete has demonstrated that her judgement or decision-making capacity was, in any event, impaired by her head injury.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that it is undisputed between the Parties that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation and has demonstrated how the substance had entered her system.

Following assessment of the Athlete's conduct impaired by her head injury the Sole Arbitrator deems that there is no justification for a further reduction of the imposed sanction.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 23 May 2022 that:

1. The appeal filed by Ms Olga Pestova with the Court of Arbitration for Sport against the decision issued on 13 May 2021 by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency is dismissed.

2. The decision issued on 13 May 2021 by the Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee of the Russian Anti-Doping Agency is confirmed.

3. (…).

4. (…).

5. All other prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2021/A/8284 World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) v. World Baseball Softball Confederation (WBSC) & Laura Vigna

• Softball
• Doping (evading, refusing or failing to submit to sample collection)
• Right of a CAS panel to issue a consent award and purpose of it
• Duty of the CAS panel to verify the bona fide of the settlement agreement

1. In accordance with Article R56 para. 2, second sentence, of the CAS Code, a CAS panel is expressly allowed to issue an award embodying the terms of the settlement if all parties to the dispute agree. The CAS panel’s endorsement of the settlement agreement and incorporation in an award serves the obvious purpose of rendering it easier for the parties to enforce the settlement agreement.

2. As any settlement “may” be embodied in an award, it is up to the CAS panel to verify the bona fide of the settlement agreement, so that the consent award mechanism is not manipulated by the parties as an instrument of fraud, and to acknowledge that the settlement terms are not contrary to public policy principles or mandatory rules.

In April 2021 the International Testing Agency, on behalf of the World Baseball-Softball Confederation (WBSC), reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Italian Athlete Laura Vigna for her evasion, refusal or failure to submit to sample collection.

In July 2021 ITA and the Athlete reached an Agreement on Consequences. In this settlement the Athlete accepted a sanction of 8 months for the committing the anti-doping rule violation.

Thereupon the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) requested the case file to the ITA in view of a potential appeal to be filed. Hereafter in August 2021 WADA appealed against this Agreement on Consequences with the Cour of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

WADA requested the Panel to amend the Appealed Decision and to impose on the Athlete a period of ineligibility of between 12 and 24 months.

In December 2021 WADA reported to CAS that the Parties had settled the matter. They requested that the adapted Settlement Agreement be embodied in an Arbitral Award rendered by consent of the Parties.

The Parties agree:

• The previous Agreement of July 2021 is set aside.
• The Athlete is sanctioned with a period of ineligibility of 1 year.
• The sanction starts on the date of the anti-doping rule violation, i.e on 19 November 2020.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 19 April 2022:

1. The terms of paragraph 1 of the Settlement Agreement submitted to the CAS Court Office on 2 December 2021 are hereby ratified by the CAS with the consent of the Parties and embodied in this arbitral Award.

2. The arbitral procedure with reference CAS 2021/A/8284 World Anti-Doping Agency v. World Baseball Softball Confederation (WBSC) & Laura Vigna is terminated and deleted from the CAS roll.

3. (…).

4. (…).

5. All other motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS 2021/O/8111 World Athletics (WA) v. Lebogang Shange

In December 2019 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) on behalf of World Athletics reported an anti-doping rule violation against the South African Athlete Lebogang Shange after his sample tested positive for the prohibited substance Trenbolone.

Following deliberations between the parties the Athlete was ultimately charged in June 2021 and the case was referred to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) in for a first instance hearing panel. 

World Athletics contended that the Athlete failed to demonstrate that the violation was not intentional, nor the source of the prohibited substance. It did not accept his explanation that the level of Epitrenbolone in his sample was caused by his ingestion of 800g of stewed beef the night before the doping control.

The Athlete denied the intentional use of the substance and requested for a reduced sanction. He asserted that he acted with No Fault of Negligence and claimed that contaminated meat was the source of the positive test.

Supported by expert witnesses, the Athlete argued that only a form of illicit or irregular use of Trenbolone on cattle, together with a misadministration of legal inspection requirements, could possible explain his positive test result. He also alleged that there were differences in the technical equipment and capabilities of detection of WADA-accredited laboratories.

The Panel finds that the presence of a prohibited substance has been established in the Athlete's sample and accordingly that he committed an anti-doping rule violation. The Panel dismisses the Athlete's allegation that accredited laboratories apply different detection capability in order to establish an adverse analytical finding.

Further the Panel assessed and addresses 3 scenarios of illicit or irregular use of Trenbolone on cattle as a potentional explanation for the Epitrenbolone found in the Athlete's system. Nevertheless the Panel concludes that these 3 scenarios cannot explain the Athlete's positive test result:

• Scenario 1:The implant of more than one pellet of Trenbolone into cattle.
• Scenario 2: Slaughter of an animal earlier than the 70 days minimum period that should elapse after the Trenbolone implant.
• Scenario 3: Misplacement of a Trebolone implant into the cattle's muscle instead into the cattle's ear.

As a result the Panel finds that the Athlete could not demonstrate, on the balance of probabilities, how the substance had entered his system, nor demonstrated the he acted unintentionally.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 March 2022 that:

1.) The Request for Arbitration filed by World Athletics on 18 May 2021 against Mr Lebogang Shange is upheld.

2.) Mr Lebogang Shange is found to have committed anti-doping rule violations pursuant to Rule 2.1 and Rule 2.2 of the World Athletics Anti-Doping Rules in force from 1 November 2019.

3.) Mr Lebogang Shange is sanctioned with a four-year period of ineligibility, commencing on the date of the present Award. The period of ineligibility served during the period of provisional suspension imposed on Mr Lebogang Shange from 19 December 2019 until 7 June 2021 and from 30 June 2021 through the date of the present Award shall be credited against the total period of ineligibility.

4.) All the competitive results obtained by Mr Lebogang Shange from 4 November 2019 are disqualified, with all the resulting consequences, including the forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, points and prize and appearance money.

5.) The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties by the CAS Court Office by separate letter, shall be borne in their entirety by Mr Lebogang Shange.

6.) Each Party shall bear its own legal fees and expenses incurred in connection with the present arbitration procedure.

7.) Any other and further motions or prayers for relief are dismissed.

CAS OG 22/11 Evan Bates, Karen Chen, Nathan Chen, Madison Chock, Zachary Donohue, Brandon Frazier, Madison Hubbell, Alexa Knierim, and Vincent Zhou vs International Olympic Committee (IOC)

Related case:

CAS OG_2022_08 IOC, WADA, ISU vs RUSADA, Kamila Valieva & ROC
February 17, 2022

Evan Bates, Karen Chen, Nathan Chen, Madison Chock, Zachary Donohue, Brandon Frazier, Madison Hubbell, Alexa Knierim and Vincent Zhou are members of the United States Figur Skating Team who placed second in the Figure Skating Team Event at the 2022 Beijing Olympic Winter Games.

In February 2022 the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva (15) after her sample, collected on 25 December 2021, tested positive for the prohibited substance Trimetazidine.

After notification a provisional suspension was ordered on 8 February 2022 and consequently the Athlete was prohibited from participation in the 2022 Beijing Olympic Games.

Yet the RUSADA Disciplinary Anti-Doping Committee (DADC) decided on 9 February 2022 to lift the Athlete's provisional suspension as it established that under the Russian ADR and the WADC 2021 the minor Athlete is a Protected Person.

On 14 February 2022, the CAS Ad Hoc Division dismissed all three applications in the consolidated proceedings (CAS OG 22/8-22/9-22/10). The Panel deemed that the Athlete has the status of a protected person and that the Provisional Suspension in question should remain lifted whether or not the Athlete committed an anti-doping rule violation.

On 14 February 2022 the IOC decided In the interest of fairness to all athletes and the NOCs concerned, it would not be appropriate to hold the medal ceremony for the figure skating team event during the Beijing Olympic Winter Games as it would include an athlete who on the one hand has a positive A-sample, but whose violation of the anti-doping rules has not yet been established on the other hand.

After deliberations with the IOC about the postponement of the medal ceremony the members of the United States Figure Skating Team appealed the IOC Decision of 14 February 2022 with the CAS AD Hoc Division.

The Applicants argued that they are innocent bystanders and completely uninvolved in the ongoing doping case related to the Athlete and the Olympic Figure Skating Team Event. The Applicants earned their second place in the Figure Skating Team Event and they cannot be deprive of being awarde their silver medals in a publice ceremony.

Accordingly the Applicants requested that the IOC be ordered to present to them the silver medals in a public ceremony to be held prior to the close of the Winter Olympic Games.

In this case the Panel finds that the Appealed Decision was neither abusive nor arbitrary, nor does the Panel find that the IOC exceeded its powers. Also the Panel fully understands the interests of the Applicants in having medals awarde to them in public during the Games.

However, and as confirmed during the hearing, none of the Parties ever expected a situation like the one at hand to arise, which is why the Panel finds no legal basis for concluding that the Appealed Decision did in fact breach any legal rights of the Applicants.

The Panel recognises the sole discretion of the IOC to decide on issues regarding, inter alia, the medal ceremonies as set out in Rule 56 of the Olympic Charter.

As such, and based on the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds no legal basis for ordering the IOC to organise a medal ceremony for the Figure Skating Team Event during the Olympic Winter Games. Consequently, the Applicants’ Application of 18 February 2022 is therefore dismissed and the Appealed Decision stands.

Therefore the Ad Hoc Division of the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 30 March 2022 that:

The Application filed by Evan Bates, Karen Chen, Nathan Chen, Madison Chock, Zachary Donohue, Brandon Frazier, Madison Hubbell, Alexa Knierim and Vincent Zhou is dismissed.

CAS 2021/A/7761 World Athletics v. Joyce Chepkirui & Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya (ADAK) & Athletics Kenya (AK)

In June 2019 the Athletics Integrity Unit (AIU) of World Athletics (WA) reported an anti-doping rule violation against the Kenyan Athlete Joyce Chepkirui after an AIU Expert Panel concluded unanimously in February 2018 in their Joint Expert Opinion that the Athlete’s hematological profile “highly likely” showed that she used a prohibited substance or a prohibited method: the use of EPO or Blood doping. 

This conclusion of the AIU Expert Panel was based on assessment of blood samples, collected in the period from 18 April 2013 until 4 August 2017 reported in the Athlete’s Biological Passport (ABP).

After notification the Athlete submitted several explanations for the abnormalities in her ABP. However after consideration the Expert Panel rejected the Athlete’s explanations in their 2nd (May 2019) and 3rd (August 2019) Joint Opinion.

A provisional suspension was ordered in June 2019 and the Athlete was heard for the Sports Dispute Tribunal of Kenya (SDT). Yet on 19 November 2020 the SDT decided to dismiss the ABP case against the Athlete.

Hereafter in March 2021 WA appealed the SDT Decision with the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) while the Athlete filed a cross appeal in April 2021. WA requested the Panel to set aside the Appealed Decision, conversely the Athlete requested to dismiss the Appeal filed by WA.

WA contended that the ABP profile of the Athlete constitutes reliable evidence of blood doping in the period 2016 and 2017. None of the Athlete's arguments explain the abnormalities in her ABP, nor that her violation was not intentional. ADAK Athletics Kenya concurred with the submissions made by WA.

The Athlete disputed the validity of the ABP as a reliable means of evidencing intentional blood manipulation. Further she argued that her medical condition, her medication and diet could explain the abnormalities in her ABP.

The Sole Arbitrator finds that principal reliability of the ABP has been confirmed by CAS in numerous cases and has been codified by WADA and WA on the basis of reliable scientific evidence.

The Arbitrator deems that the Athlete failed to substantially contest the Expert Panel's findings of the Second Expert Panel Joint Opinion (confirmed by the Third Expert Panel Joint Opinion). Further there are no indications that would cast doubt on the plausibility and appropriateness of the Expert Panel's findings.

The Sole Arbitrator is comfortably satisfied by the assessment of the Athlete's ABP that the Athlete has committed an anti-doping rule violation, i.e. that WA succeeded in establishing that the abnormal values of samples 4 to 8 in the Athlete's ABP were caused by blood doping.

The Athlete failed to prove by a balance of probability that the abnormal values in her ABP resulted from vaginal bleeding following hormonal imbalance, the use of various medications or an iron-rich diet.

Finally the Sole Arbitrator considers that there were substantial delays in the proceedings not attributed to the Athlete and that it is unfair to disqualify all the results of the Athlete over a period of more than five years.

Therefore the Court of Arbitration for Sport decides on 28 March 2022 that:

1. The appeal filed on 5 March 2021 by World Athletics with the Court of Arbitration for Sport against the decision of the Sports Dispute Tribunal of the Republic of Kenya dated 19 November 2020 is upheld.
2. The decision of the Sports Dispute Tribunal of the Republic of Kenya dated 19 November 2020 is set aside.
3. A period of ineligibility of four years is imposed on Ms. Joyce Chepkirui starting from 28 June 2019.
4. All competitive results of Ms. Joyce Chepkirui from 6 April 2016 until 4 August 2017 are to be disqualified, with all resulting consequences, including forfeiture of any titles, awards, medals, profits, prizes, and appearance money.
5. The costs of the arbitration, to be determined and served to the Parties separately by the CAS Court Office, shall be borne by the Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya.
6. The Anti-Doping Agency of Kenya shall pay an amount of CHF 2,000 (two thousand Swiss Francs) to World Athletics as contribution to its legal costs and other expenses incurred in the present proceedings.